Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING A SUBROGATION OPPORTUNITY FOR
A POTENTIAL SUBROGATION CLAIM
FIELD
[0001] Present embodiments are related to a system and method for
determining
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to one or
more products.
BACKGROUND
[0002] In a typical insurance claim scenario, insured party reports a loss
to their insurance
carrier. The insurance carrier assigns an adjuster to assess the loss and
estimate the cost of
restoration, including repair, and/or replacement. In many instances, the
adjuster assesses the
loss and determines the parameters for restoration of the loss. Due to the
emergency nature
of the loss, the adjuster is generally focused on preparing an estimate for
restoration costs, and
may not have readily accessible tools to determine subrogation opportunity for
a potential
subrogation claim relative to one or more products likely to have caused the
loss. For example,
an insured party may have property loss due to water in the basement and
report this loss to
their insurance carrier. The insurance carrier's adjuster may assess the loss
to the insured
property and estimate the cost of restoration. In some instances, the
insurance carrier may
provide the insured party with funds for the estimated restoration costs. The
insured party, in
turn, may have the repair, replacement, and/or restoration work done
independently, or
contract a restoration company and/or contractor approved by the insurance
carrier to perform
the work. In order to efficiently validate and process claims, insurance
companies may often
provide restoration and/or reparation funds to the insured party and may lose
a potential
subrogation opportunity.
[0003] Further, the underlying cause of the water in the basement may have
been a
malfunctioning sump pump, dishwasher, water heater, and/or washing machine. A
number of
factors such as a manufacturer's defect, improper installation, and/or
improper maintenance,
could have caused one or more of these products to malfunction. As a result,
the insurance
carrier may have paid for losses that may have been caused by the actions of
third parties. In
such situations, the insurance carrier would like to identify the underlying
cause of the property
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
loss, and seek reimbursement from the third party by filing a subrogation
claim. This may lead
to a considerable reduction of costs to the insurance carrier.
[0004] The determination as to whether an insurance claim may be subject to
a subrogation
claim is based on a careful analysis of one or more factors. For example, once
the insurance
adjuster prepares an estimate, loss restoration may proceed swiftly, whereby
potentially
significant evidence may be lost. Capturing and preserving evidence from the
affected area in a
timely manner is therefore an important factor. Other factors may include
maintaining an
updated database of product-related information (e.g., Statute of Repose
database for a state
in which the loss occurred, a Consumer Product Safety database, a historical
database, and a
new trends database). Therefore, it is desirable to have a system and method
for readily
determining a subrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunity for a
potential
subrogation claim relative to one or more products. The systems and methods
disclosed herein
facilitate the insurance adjuster's ability to identify data related to
product identifiers of the
products (e.g., serial number, product barcode, UPC code, make, model and year
of the sump
pump, dishwasher, water heater, and/or washing machine), and provide the
product identifiers
to one or more servers. The one or more servers may compare the received
product identifiers
with product data to determine if the products have been subject to recalls,
have known
defects, have been subject to component testing, and/or if similar products
have been a subject
of past subrogation claims. Based at least in part on such factors, a
subrogation score may be
determined. In some implementations a subrogation report may be generated
based on the
subrogation score. The insurance carrier, and/or the insurance adjuster, may
then readily make
a determination whether to proceed with a subrogation project. The methods and
systems
disclosed herein facilitate the submission of a subrogation project.
SUMMARY
[0005] The specification describes systems and methods for determining a
subrogation
score for a potential subrogation claim. As discussed, the systems and methods
described
herein provide a user, such as an insurance claims adjuster, with the tools to
retrieve and
communicate information related to one or more products likely to have caused
a property
loss. The systems and methods may further determine a subrogation score
indicative of
2
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to the one
or more products.
The subrogation score may be based on information in at least one database.
The subrogation
score may be provided to the user such as an insurance carrier. The user may
then decide
whether to proceed with further investigative analyses (e.g., component
testing of the one or
more products) pursuant to a potential subrogation claim. Additional systems
and methods
disclosed herein facilitate the insurance carrier's submission of the one or
more products for
component testing.
[0006] In some implementations, a method is described that includes:
receiving, via an
application on a computing device of a user, one or more product identifiers,
the one or more
product identifiers identifying one or more products likely to have
contributed to a loss;
searching at least one database for product data related to the one or more
product identifiers,
the at least one database including one or more of a Statute of Repose
database, a Consumer
Product Safety database, a historical database and a new trends database;
retrieving, via one or
more servers, the product data from the at least one database; determining,
based on the
retrieved product data, a subrogation score for each of the one or more
products, the
subrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim
relative to the one or more products; and providing the subrogation score to
the user.
[0007] This method and other implementations of the technology disclosed
can each
optionally include one or more of the following features.
[0008] In some implementations the product identifiers may include at least
one product
attribute for each of said one or more products. In some implementations the
at least one
product attribute may include one or more of a make, model, year of
manufacture, year of
purchase, age, photograph, video recording, audio recording, and product
description related
to said one or more products.
[0009] The method may further comprise identifying a claim identifier, the
claim identifier
identifying the potential subrogation claim related to the loss. In some
implementations the
claim identifier may include one or more of an insured party identifier, the
insured party
identifier identifying a beneficiary of the insurance claim, a date
identifier, the date identifier
3
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
identifying the date the loss occurred, and a geographical identifier, the
geographical identifier
identifying a physical location where the loss occurred.
[0010] The method may further comprise providing, via the application on
the computing
device of the user, a selectable option to submit the one or more products for
component
testing. In some implementations the method may further comprise receiving,
via the
application on the computing device of the user, an affirmative user selection
of the selectable
option to submit the one or more products for component testing. The method
may further
comprise responding to the affirmative user selection of the selectable option
to submit by
prompting the user to enter one or more claim identifiers. In some
implementations the
method may further comprise generating a confirmation number for the one or
more products
for component testing. In some implementations the method may further comprise
responding to the affirmative user selection by providing shipping information
to the user to
ship the one or more products for the component testing. In some
implementations the
method may further comprise responding to the affirmative user selection by
providing
evidence collection recommendations related to the one or more products for
the component
testing. The method may further comprise receiving, via the application on the
computing
device of the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectable option to
not submit the one
or more products for component testing.
[0011] In some implementations determining the subrogation score may
include generating
a subrogation report for each of the one or more products based on the
subrogation score.
[0012] The method may further comprise associating the subrogation score
with each of the
one or more product identifiers in a subrogation database.
[0013] In some implementations the at least one database may include a new
trends
database, and the method may further comprise comparing the subrogation score
to a
threshold. The method may further comprise determining, based on the
comparison of
subrogation score to the threshold, a new trend factor, the new trend factor
indicative of
recent occurrences of the one or more products in the new trends database. The
method may
further comprise adjusting the subrogation score based on the new trend
factor.
4
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0014] In some implementations the at least one database may include a
Statute of Repose
database, and the method may further comprise identifying a state for applying
the Statute of
Repose. The method may further comprise identifying a statutory time limit for
the identified
state in the Statute of Repose database, and adjusting the subrogation score
based on
comparison of the statutory time limit and an elapsed time from purchase date
of the one or
more products.
[0015] In some implementations the retrieved product data may include one
or more of
product recall information, manufacturing defect information, and a product
warning.
[0016] In some implementations the one or more products may include one or
more of
roofing material, an appliance, electrical components, and plumbing
components.
[0017] In some implementations the one or more product identifiers may
include one or
more of a product barcode, serial number, and UPC code.
[0018] In some implementations, a method, implemented on a mobile device,
is described
that includes: identifying, via the user-interface on the mobile application,
one or more
product identifiers, the one or more product identifiers identifying one or
more products likely
to have contributed to a loss; providing, via one or more servers, the one or
more product
identifiers to a central server; prompting the central server to search at
least one database for
product data related to the one or more products, the at least one database
including one or
more of a Statute of Repose database, a Consumer Product Safety database, a
historical
database and a new trends database; receiving, from the central server, a
subrogation score
based on the one or more products identifiers, the subrogation score
indicative of subrogation
opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to the one or more
products; and
displaying the subrogation score via the mobile application.
[0019] Other implementations may include a non-transitory computer readable
storage
medium storing computer instructions executable by a processor to perform the
various
methods described herein. Another implementation may include implementing the
disclosed
method and apparatus on an application running on a computing device (e.g., a
mobile
application on a mobile device, a downloadable application on a desktop
computer, and so
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
forth). Yet another implementation may include a network comprising a
communication
environment in optional combination with one or more third party databases,
wherein the
communication environment comprises communication infrastructure capable of
data
exchange from and between one or more servers and a plurality of client
devices in the field.
The one or more servers may include a central command and/or or distributed
information
resources.
[0020] In general, one aspect of the technology described herein can be
embodied in
methods that include retrieving on-site data pertaining to product identifiers
of one or more
products likely to have contributed to a loss. This may be accomplished via a
computer
application running on a computing device of a user. This data is then
uploaded to the system
and correlated to and synthesized with available metrics from at least one
database to
determine a subrogation score. The retrieval of data is achieved within a
short window of
opportunity so as not to lose any evidence.
[0021] The details of one or more embodiments of the technology disclosed
in this
specification are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description
below. Additional
features, aspects, and advantages of the technology disclosed will become
apparent from the
description, the drawings and the claims.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example environment for
determining a
subrogation score for a subrogation opportunity.
[0023] FIGs. 2A-2B illustrate example methods of receiving a product
identifier.
[0024] FIG. 3A is a table illustrating example methods of determining a
base score.
[0025] FIG. 3B is a table illustrating example methods of determining a new
trend factor.
[0026] FIG. 3C is a table illustrating example methods of determining a
recall factor.
[0027] FIG. 3D is a table illustrating example methods of determining a
statute factor.
[0028] FIG. 3E is a table illustrating example methods of determining a
subrogation score.
6
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0029] FIG. 3F is a table illustrating example methods of providing a
subrogation score.
[0030] FIGs. 4A-4E illustrate example graphical user interfaces for
providing a subrogation
score.
[0031] FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for
determining a subrogation
score for one or more products implemented on one or more servers.
[0032] FIG. 6 illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for
determining a subrogation
score for one or more products implemented on a mobile device.
[0033] FIG. 7 illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for
submitting a subrogation
project.
[0034] FIG. 8 illustrates a block diagram of an example computer system.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0035] Present embodiments are related to systems and methods for
determining a
subrogation score for one or more products. The subrogation score may be
indicative of
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to the one
or more products.
In the event of a property loss, an insurance carrier responds to a filed
claim by sending an
adjuster to assess the property loss. In most instances, the adjuster assesses
the loss and
prepares an estimate for restoration costs. The insurance provider may
compensate the
insured party for the estimated amount. The insured party may take steps
toward restoration
of the property. As a result, the adjuster's focus is typically on determining
if the loss is an
insured loss, and preparing an estimate for the restoration costs. The
adjuster, being out in the
field, may identify one or more products likely to have contributed to the
loss. However, the
adjuster may not always have the tools to determine if one or more products
that contributed
to the loss has the potential of being the subject of a subrogation claim.
This may occur, for
instance, when the adjuster does not have access to information related to
product recalls,
manufacturing defects, and so forth. For example, the adjuster may respond to
a claim related
to property loss resulting from water in a basement. The adjuster may arrive
at the physical
location and assess the property loss in the basement and prepare an estimate
for restoration
7
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
costs. The adjuster may additionally identify one or more products (e.g., a
sump pump, an air
conditioning unit, water heating unit, supply lines, plumbing components, and
so forth) that are
likely to have contributed to the loss. However, without access to a database,
the adjuster may
not be able to determine subrogation opportunity for a subrogation claim
relative to the one or
more products. For example, one or more of the products may have been subject
to a product
recall. As another example, one or more of the products may have certain
manufacturing
defects and/or persistent malfunctions that have been reported. Also, for
example, one or
more of the products may have been used and/or installed in a negligent
manner. As another
example, one or more of the products may have been the subject of component
testing in the
past that is indicative of a product defect. The insurance adjuster may not
have the tools to
identify such potential alternative causes of the loss. Instead, based on the
estimate for
restoration costs prepared by the insurance adjuster, the insurance carrier
may pay the insured
party for restoration of the property. The insured party may proceed with
restoration efforts,
thereby eliminating valuable evidence needed for a subrogation claim.
Accordingly, a
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to the one
or more products
may be lost. Consequently, insurance companies may pay for losses for which
third parties,
such as product manufacturers and/or distributors, may be responsible.
[0036] The determination as to whether a product may be a subject of a
potential
subrogation claim is based on a careful analysis of one or more factors.
Capturing and
preserving evidence related to the property loss in a timely manner is one
such factor. For
example, if a water heater malfunctions during winter, the insured person is
likely to expect a
quick response from the insurance carrier in terms of a replacement heater,
and/or repair time.
In such circumstances, the insurance carrier and/or the owner may opt to
restore the water
heating capability at the earliest opportunity. The water heater may therefore
get removed,
repaired, and/or replaced, and evidence as to the cause of the property loss
may be eliminated.
As a result, the insurance carrier may lose subrogation opportunity for a
potential subrogation
claim relative to the one or more products.
[0037] It is therefore desirable to have a system and method for readily
determining a
subrogation score for a potential subrogation claim and provide the
subrogation score to an
8
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
insurance carrier. An insurance adjuster may assess the loss, retrieve data
related to product
identifiers of one or more products likely to have caused the loss, and
provide such data to the
system. The received data may be compared to existing data in at least one
database to
determine a subrogation score. In some implementations a subrogation report
may be
generated and provided to the insurance carrier and/or the adjuster with a
selectable option to
submit the one or more products for further component testing.
[0038] In general, one aspect of the technology described herein can be
embodied in
methods that include retrieving and updating, on-site data pertaining to
product identifiers.
This may be accomplished via a computer application running on a user's mobile
device. This
data is then uploaded to the system and correlated to and synthesized with
available metrics
from a product database to determine subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation
claim relative to the one or more products. The retrieval and update of data
is achieved within
a short window of opportunity so as not to lose any evidence.
[0039] These and other particular embodiments will be described in more
detail with the
help of the figures.
[0040] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example environment for
determining a
subrogation score for a subrogation opportunity. The process environment 100
includes a
subrogation opportunity processing system 110, and one or more client devices
160. The
process environment 100 also includes a network 120 that allows for
communication between
various components of the process environment 100. The example environment 100
further
includes a subrogation database 130, a subrogation scoring system 140, and
optionally, a
subrogation report generator 145. In some implementations, the subrogation
report generator
145 may be included in the subrogation scoring system 140. In some
implementations one or
more components, or parts thereof, of the process environment 100 may reside
on the client
device.
[0041] During operation, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110
may receive
one or more products identifiers via an application on a computing device of a
user. The one or
more product identifiers may include a serial number, a product barcode, a UPC
number, a file
9
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
name associated with a product, and so forth. For example, a water heater may
be uniquely
identified by a serial number, a model number, and/or a universal product code
("UPC"). In
some implementations a given product of the one or more products may be
uniquely identified
by a product barcode. In such instances the product identifier may be data
obtained from the
product barcode. A product identifier may also be a file name uniquely
associated with a data
file. For example, the file may be a JPEG file that includes a digital
photograph of impact on a
roof. The file may be associated with a unique product identifier such as
"IDXYZ1234_roof_side.jpg", where "XYZ1234" may be a claim number. In some
implementations the digital photograph may be the product identifier for the
roof. In some
implementation a product identifier may be uniquely associated with a product
(e.g., product
barcode, serial number, UPC number).
[0042] In some implementations the product identifier may include at least
one product
attribute for each of said one or more products. The product attribute may be
a description of
the product, or the product attribute may be related to one or more components
of the
product that may have contributed to the loss. The at least one product
attribute may include
one or more of a year of manufacture, year of purchase, age, photograph,
video, and audio
recording. In some implementations the product attribute may not be uniquely
associated with
a product. For example, several appliances may share the same year of
manufacture. Also, the
heating element of a water heater is a product attribute that is not unique to
a water heater.
Generally speaking, the one or more products may include any product that may
be identified
as a potential cause of the loss. Such products may include, but are not
limited to, roofing
material, an appliance, electrical components, plumbing components, and so
forth.
[0043] In some implementations a claim identifier may be identified. The
claim identifier
may identify a potential subrogation claim related to a loss. For example, the
claim identifier
may be a claim number associated with the potential subrogation claim. As
another example,
the claim identifier may be the insurance adjuster's company information.
Also, for example,
the claim identifier may be a combination of the claim number associated with
the potential
subrogation claim and the insurance identification number for the insured
party.
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0044] In some implementations the claim identifier may include additional
data related to
the potential subrogation claim. In some implementations the claim identifier
may include an
insured party identifier, where the insured party identifier may identify an
insured party that
has suffered the loss. For example, the insured party may be an insured person
that filed an
insurance claim for the loss, and the insured party identifier may be the
person's insurance
policy number. In some implementations the claim identifier may include a date
identifier, the
date identifier identifying the date the loss occurred. For example, the date
identifier may be in
a format such as <12 _ 19 _2012> indicating that the loss occurred on December
19, 2012.
[0045] In some implementations the claim identifier may include a
geographical identifier,
the geographical identifier identifying a physical location where the loss
occurred. The
geographical identifier may be geolocational data, including data from a GPS,
or a Wi-Fi
network. The geographical identifier may also be the physical address of the
location where
the loss occurred.
[0046] The one or more product identifiers may be identified by the user.
For example, an
adjuster may be at a physical location where a loss may have occurred. In some
implementations a mobile application may be installed on a mobile device of
the adjuster. The
adjuster may access the mobile application and enter data related to the one
or more products
identifiers. For example, the adjuster may upload the one or more product
identifiers either
automatically (e.g., scanning a product barcode with an optical scanner,
taking an image) or
manually (e.g., entering data, such as a product serial number, via a virtual
keyboard) through
an appropriate user interface on the application on the computing device.
[0047] The entry of data related to the product identifiers, and/or the
claim identifier, could
be done in one of many embodiments, including a menu and icon driven approach
to enable
the user to provide the product identifiers, and/or claim identifier,
including estimating the
extent and type of property loss, and uploading photos, videos, audio, text,
and other
documents. In some implementations, the menu and icon driven approach may also
be
enhanced to provide menus and icons of a generic nature, and also those
customized for a
particular type of product. For example, the menus and icons for an air
conditioning unit may
be configured differently than the menus and icons for a water heater. In some
11
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
implementations, the menus and icons may be presented in an interactive manner
wherein a
particular input into a field data value prompts a further enquiry from the
system. For example,
the user may enter the model and serial number for a water heater into the
system. Based on
data in the subrogation database 130, the system may prompt the user to enter
additional
information such as the year of make. In some implementations, the user may be
allowed to
create data fields to enter specific kinds of data. For example, the user may
inspect property
loss and identify one or more product identifiers for the product, and create
data fields to enter
data related to one or more product identifiers. In such implementations, the
systems may
generate a field for data entry based on a previously entered data stored in
the subrogation
database 130. For example, the user may be prompted to "enter the product bar
code", or to
"enter model number". The user may respond, for example, by scanning the
product bar code
and/or entering it manually.
[0048] The network 120 may include components with memory for storage of
data and
software applications, a processor for accessing data and executing
applications, and
components that facilitate communication over the network 120 in the process
environment
100. In some implementations, when the one or more products identifiers are
received by the
subrogation opportunity processing system 110, the one or more products
identifiers may be
stored and/or indexed in the subrogation database for future retrieval. Such
storing and/or
indexing may be based on one or more of the claim identifier, and/or product
identifier.
[0049] In some implementations, upon receipt of the one or more product
identifiers, the
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may extract the product
identifiers, and/or
claim identifier for the one or more products, and initiate a search of at
least one database for
product data related to the one or more products. In some implementations the
network 120
may communicate with the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 and
prompt the
user to input additional information to facilitate the search.
[0050] The subrogation database 130 stores product data for one or more
products. The at
least one database includes historical data indicative of results of past
component testing.
Product data may include product data retrieved from one or more external
product databases
150 such as databases maintained by the Consumer Product Safety Commission
("CPSC"),
12
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
Consumer Federation of America ("CFA"), and National Highway Safety
Administration
("NHSA"). For example, the CPSC website provides information related to
product recalls. A
"Recall Summary" may provide the name of the product, the nature of the defect
and/or
hazard, a report on incidents and/or injuries, recommended remedies, and where
applicable,
the names of the seller, distributor, manufacturer, importer, and so forth.
The subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 may retrieve this information from the CPSC
website and
store it in the subrogation database 130. In some implementations the
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 may periodically scan websites such as the
CPSC website for
information related to products.
[0051] In some implementations the subrogation database 130 may store
product data for
one or more products based on the results of past component testing. For
example, a water
heater may have been the subject of a past inquiry. Engineers may have
performed an origin
and cause analysis for the water heater to determine what caused the water
heater to
malfunction and/or which components of the water heater failed. The results of
such analysis,
including evidentiary facts, may be stored in the subrogation database 130. In
some
implementations the subrogation database 130 may additionally include details
of current and
potential component testing.
[0052] The subrogation database 130 may be appropriately indexed to enable
efficient
search features. In some implementations the indexing may be based on the type
of product,
the manufacturer, the distributor, the make, model and/or year, the type of
defects, the
components that may have failed, and so forth. In some implementations the
indexing may be
based on the price of the product, and/or the replacement cost for the
product. Indexing may
also be based on geographic regions, insurance providers, and/or the type of
consumer.
Additional and/or alternative methods of indexing may be utilized such as the
source of the
information related to the product identifiers and/or product data. The
subrogation database
130 may additionally and/or alternatively include a record of data regarding
field data input,
data field created by a user, etc. The record may further include time stamp
data and session
identification data that facilitate indexing of documents and other multimedia
content.
13
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0053] The product identifier and the product data are then processed by
the subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 as disclosed herein. Clients and a variety
of end users
interact with the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 through the
client devices
160. The client devices 160 include memory for storage of data and software
applications, a
processor for accessing data and executing applications, and components that
facilitate
communication over the network 120 in the process environment 100. The client
devices 160
execute applications, such as application 165, that allow clients to interact
with the visual
displays and other information provided by the subrogation opportunity
processing system 110.
[0054] As the volume of product data stored in the subrogation database 130
increases, the
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 is able to identify failure
trends, newly
emergent trends, and better determine subrogation potential. Populating the
subrogation
database 130 with results of component testing is also useful in maintaining
an updated
database about products and specific factors that may increase the subrogation
opportunity for
a potential subrogation claim relative to the product.
[0055] Referring to FIG. 2A, an example method of receiving a product
identifier is
illustrated. A graphical user interface 200 on a mobile application is
illustrated. The graphical
user interface 200 illustrated here allows the user to input the product
barcode 220 by
capturing a digital image of the barcode via a camera. The user may be
presented with a
prompt 210, such as "Tap to focus". The user may respond by focusing the
camera over the
product barcode 220 and by tapping the screen on the mobile device. The focus
indicator 230
indicates if the image of the barcode is in focus. The focus indicator 230 may
be red to indicate
that the image is out of focus, and may turn green when the image is in focus.
Once the image
of the product barcode 220 is captured, it may be transmitted to the
subrogation opportunity
processing system 110 for further processing. In some implementations, one or
more
databases may be searched for product data related to the transmitted barcode.
[0056] Referring to FIG. 2B, another example method of receiving a product
identifier is
illustrated. A graphical user interface 200 on a mobile application is
illustrated. The graphical
user interface 200 illustrated here allows the user to input the product
barcode 240 by scanning
the barcode with an optical scanner, and/or via manual entry of the product
barcode 240. The
14
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
optical scanner may be an external device operationally connected to the
mobile device. In
some implementations, the mobile application may be configured to include
optical scanning
capabilities. In some implementations, the mobile application may be
configured to
communicate with an independent optical scanning mobile application to receive
the digital
record of the barcode 240. In some implementations the user may be presented
with a prompt
260, such as "Scan". The user may respond by scanning the product barcode 240
using an
optical scanner. A scan indicator 250 may indicate if the optical scanner is
able to capture the
product barcode 240. Once the product barcode 240 is captured, it may be
transmitted to the
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 for further processing. In some
implementations, one or more databases may be searched for product data
related to the
transmitted barcode.
[0057] The graphical user interface 200 illustrated here may allow the user
to input the
product barcode 240 via manual entry of the product barcode 240. In some
implementations
the user may be presented with a prompt 280, such as "Manual Entry". The user
may respond
by entering the number 280 associated with the product barcode 240. For
example, the user
may input the number <658072753072> associated with the product barcode 240 by
using the
virtual keyboard 270. In some implementations the user may use an audio
interface to speak
the barcode and the mobile application may store it in digital audio form. In
some
implementations such digital audio may be transcribed to obtain the product
barcode.
[0058] In some implementations the product data may be retrieved from the
at least one
database. For example, the subrogation database 130 may be searched for
product data
related to the make and/or model of an appliance. The subrogation database 130
may have
stored product data indicating that the appliance was subject to a
manufacturer's recall. Such
product data may be retrieved from the subrogation database 130 by the
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110. As another example, an image of a faulty
product may be
submitted to the subrogation database 130 and the subrogation opportunity
processing system
110 may search the subrogation database 130 for product data that matches the
submitted
image. Such matching product data may be retrieved from the subrogation
database 130 by
the subrogation opportunity processing system 110.
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0059] In some implementations a subrogation score may be determined for
each of said
one or more products. The subrogation score may be indicative of subrogation
opportunity for
a potential subrogation claim relative to said one or more products. In some
implementations
the subrogation score may be determined by the subrogation scoring system 140.
In some
implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may include a subrogation
report
generator 145. The subrogation score may be based on product data retrieved
from at least
one database, including a Statute of Repose database, a Consumer Product
Safety database, a
historical database and a new trends database.
[0060] In some implementations the subrogation database 130 may be
configured to
receive and process product data from one or more external product databases
150 via
network 120. Such product data may be directly or indirectly transferred,
processed, and
stored in the subrogation database 130. The subrogation opportunity processing
system 110
may receive, process and/or synthesize the product data from the at least one
database and
provide the results of the synthesis to the subrogation scoring system 140. As
product
identifiers are entered by the user, this data may be compared to product data
in the
subrogation database 130 by the subrogation opportunity processing system 110
and provided
to the subrogation scoring system 140. The subrogation scoring system 140 may
determine a
subrogation score and provide it to the subrogation opportunity processing
system 110. The
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may communicate the subrogation
score to the
client via the network 120. In some implementations the subrogation
opportunity processing
system 110 may include one or more client interfaces tailored to different
users. Such
interfaces may include the logic to tailor the subrogation report based on a
particular user.
[0061] For example, the product identifiers, such as the make, model,
and/or year, may
indicate that the product is generally prone to manufacturing defects.
Accordingly a
subrogation score more indicative of the subrogation opportunity for a
potential subrogation
claim may be associated with the given product. As another example, the
product data may
indicate that a given product has been recalled by the manufacturer.
Accordingly a subrogation
score more indicative of the subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim may be
associated with the given product. On the other hand, product data may
indicate that a given
16
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
product has not been subject to any recalls by the manufacturer. Accordingly a
subrogation
score less indicative of the subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim may be
associated with the given product.
[0062] Also, for example, the subrogation score may be based on an analysis
of past and
present component testing. In some implementations the subrogation opportunity
processing
system 110 may identify trends in product defects based on component testing
data and
optionally store information related to such trends in a new trends database.
For example,
component testing may indicate that water heaters from a particular
manufacturer include a
component that fails within the first five years of use, but rarely within the
first two years of
use. Such data may not be available from an external product database 150. The
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 may provide such information to the
subrogation scoring
system 140 which may accordingly assign a subrogation score more indicative of
the
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim with a water heater
that has been in
use for four years than with a water heater that is in its first year of use.
As another example,
the frequency of product data related to a sump pump may not be statistically
significant over a
period of say, 15 years. However, an observable spike may be seen when the
frequency of
product data is limited to the last six months. Such data may be stored in the
new trends
database. In some implementations the new trends database may be included in
the
subrogation database 130.
[0063] In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may
determine the
subrogation score based on an analysis of past subrogation claims. A record of
past
subrogation claims may be maintained, for example, in a historical database.
The historical
database may, in some implementations, be included in the subrogation database
130. For
example, the subrogation database 130 may include associations between product
identifiers
and past subrogation claims. In some implementations the associations may be
additionally
refined based on the outcome of a subrogation claim. For example, the
subrogation database
130 may include data indicative of whether a subrogation claim was successful,
and/or the
claim amount from a past subrogation claim. Such data may be retrieved from
one or more
external databases 150. Accordingly a subrogation score more indicative of the
subrogation
17
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated with a given
product that is
associated with one or more successful past subrogation claims. On the other
hand, a
subrogation score less indicative of the subrogation opportunity for a
potential subrogation
claim may be associated with a given product that is associated with one or
more unsuccessful
past subrogation claims. The number of successes and/or failures may be an
additional
criterion in the determination of the subrogation score. For example, a record
of a successful
past subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may add to the
subrogation
score for a given product, whereas a record of an unsuccessful past
subrogation opportunity for
a potential subrogation claim may diminish the subrogation score for the given
product.
Likewise, a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogation opportunity
for a potential
subrogation claim may be associated with a given product that is associated
with a record of
one or more successful past subrogation opportunities with a subrogation claim
amount that is
more than a threshold value. Also, a subrogation score less indicative of the
subrogation
opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated with a given
product that is
associated with a record of one or more unsuccessful past subrogation
opportunities with a
subrogation claim amount that is less than the threshold value.
[0064] In some implementations a median claim amount may be determined and
a standard
deviation from the median claim amount may be utilized to determine the
subrogation score.
For example, a larger positive deviation from the median claim amount may be
more indicative
of a subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim whereas a
larger negative
deviation from the median claim amount may be less indicative of a subrogation
opportunity
for a potential subrogation claim. Accordingly, a subrogation score more
indicative of the
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated
with a given
product that is associated with a larger positive deviation from the median
claim amount. On
the other hand, a subrogation score less indicative of the subrogation
opportunity for a
potential subrogation claim may be associated with a given product that is
associated with a
larger negative deviation from the median claim amount.
[0065] In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may
determine the
subrogation score based on a comparison of the replacement and/or repair costs
to the
18
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
insurance carrier and the expected subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim.
For example, the subrogation database 130 may store information related to the
restoration
costs for a given product. The subrogation database 130 may additionally store
data indicative
of component testing costs, arbitration costs, product shipping costs (e.g.,
to ship the product
to a component testing laboratory) related to the one or more products in a
potential
subrogation claim. In some implementations the subrogation opportunity
processing system
110 may determine an estimated cost for pursuing a potential subrogation
claim. The
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may compare the replacement
and/or repair
costs to the insurance carrier and the expected costs for pursuing a potential
subrogation claim.
For example, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may determine
the difference
between the restoration costs to the insurance carrier and the expected costs
for pursuing a
potential subrogation claim. A larger positive difference may be more
indicative of a
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim whereas a larger
negative difference
may be less indicative of a subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim. Such
information may then be provided to the subrogation scoring system 140, which
may
determine that a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogation
opportunity for a
potential subrogation claim may be associated with a given product that is
associated with a
larger positive difference. On the other hand, a subrogation score less
indicative of the
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated
with a given
product that is associated with a larger negative difference.
[0066] In some implementations the retrieved product data may be provided
to the
subrogation report generator 145 for further processing. For example, the
product identifiers
may be compared to the retrieved product data by the subrogation opportunity
processing
system 110. After comparing the product identifiers to the product data, the
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 may forward the results of the comparison to
the
subrogation report generator 145. A subrogation report details the results of
the origin and
cause analysis for the loss based on failure analysis. For example, a water
heater may have
malfunctioned. Analysis may reveal that the malfunctioning was caused by the
failure of two
components. The analysis may further reveal that the failure of the first
component was due to
19
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
a manufacturing defect. This may be based, at least in part, on data received
from the CPSC
website. It may be additionally determined that the second component has been
subjected to
frequent component testing in the past. This may be based, at least in part,
on data in the
historical database. The subrogation report may provide such information to
the insurance
carrier. The insurance carrier may then make a determination as to whether a
subrogation
claim related to the water heater may be proper. In some implementations the
subrogation
report may be tailored based on one or more factors such as the product, the
insurance
provider, the type of potential subrogation claim, the type of defect, and so
forth.
100671 The subrogation scoring system 140 may determine a subrogation score
and provide
it to the subrogation report generator 145. The subrogation report generator
145 may
generate a report based on the subrogation score and provide the subrogation
report to the
subrogation opportunity processing system 110. The subrogation opportunity
processing
system 110 may communicate the subrogation report to the client via the
network 120. In
some implementations the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may
include one or
more client interfaces tailored to different users. Such interfaces may
include the logic to tailor
the subrogation report based on a particular user.
100681 In some implementations the external database 150 may include a
Statute of Repose
database. A statute of repose provides a date upon which a legal action no
longer exists. It
cuts off an injured person's right of action even before it accrues. In the
area of product
liability, a statute of repose may bar a remedy even before a cause of action
arises. For
example, a malfunctioning water heater may cause property loss to a basement.
The statute of
limitations may set a time limit from the time the property loss occurs,
whereas a statute of
repose may set a time limit from the date the water heater was purchased. As a
result, if the
property loss occurs after the statute of repose time limit, then no cause of
action may exist.
Similarly, statutes of repose may impose an absolute bar to actions against
product
manufacturers within a time limit from the delivery of the product to the
consumer.
Additionally, a statute of repose deadline is typically stricter than a
statute of limitations
deadline, and may therefore be critical in the determination of a subrogation
opportunity for a
potential subrogation claim.
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0069] In some implementations the subrogation opportunity processing
system 110 may
identify a state for applying the Statute of Repose. The state may be
determined based on
existing state laws. In some implementations the state may be identified based
on a claim
identifier such as a geographical identifier. The state may be the state where
the loss occurred
and/or the state in which the product originated (e.g., based purchased,
manufactured, and/or
where a construction was substantially completed). The subrogation opportunity
processing
system 110 may search the statute of repose limitations for the identified
state, and retrieve
the appropriate statute of repose time limit from a Statute of Repose
database. The
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may identify an age of the
product (e.g., based
on the product attributes), and compare the statute of repose time limit to
the age of the
product. Such comparison information may be provided to the subrogation
scoring system 140
which may adjust the subrogation score based on such comparison.
[0070] In some implementations determining the subrogation score further
includes
determining a base score. The base score may be based on a frequency of
occurrence of the
one or more products in the historical database, and a record, in the
historical database, of one
or more of a manufacturer's defect, an installation error, and/or improper
maintenance. As
discussed herein, such a record may be stored based on the results of past
subrogation
opportunities.
[0071] Referring to FIG. 3A, a table illustrates example methods of
determining the base
score. In FIG. 3A, the rows are labeled by product identifiers P1, ..., P11
and the columns are
labeled as C1 through C6. A position XY will refer to the entry in row X and
column Y. The entry
"1000" in Row P1 and Column C1 represents the number of appearances ("A") of
the product
identified as P1 in the historical database. The entry "5" in Row P1 and
Column C2 represents
the number of past subrogation opportunities based on a manufacturer's defect
in the product
identified as P1. The entry "12" in Row P1 and Column C3 represents the number
of past
subrogation opportunities based on an installation error for the product
identified as P1. The
entry "13" in Row P1 and Column C4 represents the number of past subrogation
opportunities
based on improper maintenance of the product identified as P1. The entry "20"
in Row P1 and
Column C5 represents the number of past subrogation opportunities based on a
percentage of
21
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
destructive testing of the product identified as Pi. The number of past
subrogation
opportunities ("B") may be calculated as the sum of the past subrogation
opportunities based
on a manufacturer's defect, an installation error, an improper maintenance,
and a percentage
of destructive testing, of the product identified as Pi. In our example, the
sum B for the
product identified as Pi is equal to 5 + 12 + 13 + 20 = 50. The entry
"50/1000" in Row Pi and
Column C6 represents the base score determined as a ratio of B/A, with B = 50
and A = 1000.
The entry "5%" in Row Pi and Column C7 represents the base score as a
percentage. The
remaining entries in the table in Fig. 3A may be computed in like manner.
[0072] In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may
determine one or
more additional factors to adjust the subrogation score. In some
implementations the
subrogation score may be based on one or more of a statute factor, a new trend
factor, and a
recall factor.
[0073] The new trend factor is indicative of recent occurrences of the
product in the
subrogation database. For example, the number of occurrences of the product
data related to
a sump pump may not be statistically significant over a period of say, 15
years. However, an
observable spike may be seen when the number of occurrences of the product
data is limited
to the last six months. Such data may be stored in the new trends database. In
some
implementations the scoring system 140 may determine if the subrogation score
is less than a
first threshold, determine a new trend factor, and adjust the subrogation
score based on a
comparison of the first threshold and the new trend factor.
[0074] For example, the new trend factor may be determined by first
determining if the
base score for the product is less than a first threshold percentage. If the
base score is less than
a first threshold percentage, then the subrogation scoring system 140 may
determine the
number of occurrences of the product in the new trends database. In some
implementations
the new trends database may include product data that is filtered based on a
time stamp data
associated with the product, and determining that the time stamp data pertains
to a
predetermined time interval. For example, depending on the product, the time
interval may be
three months or five years. If the number of occurrences of the product in the
new trends
database exceeds a second threshold number, the new trend factor may be
determined to be a
22
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
multiplier, such as 2. If the number of occurrences of the product in the new
trends database is
determined not to exceed the second threshold number, the new trend factor may
be
determined to be 1. In some implementations the multiplier may depend on the
predetermined time interval. For example, two time intervals may be
identified. A higher
multiplier may be associated with the more recent time interval, and a lower
multiplier may be
associated with the earlier time interval. Likewise, the multiplier may depend
on the first
threshold percentage and/or the second threshold number. A higher multiplier
may be
associated with a higher first threshold percentage (resp., second threshold
number) and a
lower multiplier may be associated with a lower first threshold percentage
(resp., second
threshold number).
[0075] Referring to FIG. 3B, a table illustrates example methods of
determining the new
trend factor. In FIG. 3B, the rows are labeled by product identifiers P1, ...,
P11 and the columns
are labeled as C1 through C3. A position XY will refer to the entry in row X
and column Y.
Column C1 indicates a determination as to whether the base score for the
indicated product is
less than a first threshold percentage (e.g., 40 %). The entry "Y" in Row P1
and Column C1
indicates that the base score for the product identified as P1 is less than
40%. This may be
determined based on the entry of "5%" in Row P1 and Column C7 of the table in
Fig. 3A that
represents the base score for the product identified as P1 as a percentage.
Column C2 indicates
a determination as to whether the number of entries in a new trends database
(e.g., within a
shorter time threshold such as in the last three months) is greater than a
second threshold
number (e.g. 20). The entry "Y" in Row P1 and Column C2 indicates that the
number of entries
for the product identified as P1 during the last three months exceeds 20.
Accordingly, the entry
"2" in Row P1 and Column C3 indicates that the new trend factor for the
product identified as P1
is 2.
[0076] The recall factor is indicative of the frequency of recall for the
product based at least
in part on data retrieved from a recall database. In some implementations the
recall database
may be the CPSC database. The recall factor may be determined by comparing the
product
identifiers with the product data in the recall database. For example, the
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 may search the CPSC database based on
criteria including
23
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
one or more of a type of product, an item description, and a model.
Additionally, the historical
database may be searched for a product brand, and a product manufacturer. The
results of the
search may be compared with the product identifiers. If the comparison yields
a matching of
data that exceeds a third threshold percentage, then the recall factor may be
determined to be
a multiplier, such as 2. If the comparison yields a matching of data that does
not exceed the
third threshold percentage, the new trend factor may be determined to be 1. In
some
implementations the multiplier may depend on the third threshold percentage.
For example,
two third threshold percentages may be identified. A higher multiplier may be
associated with
the higher third threshold percentage (e.g., a multiplier such as 3 associated
with a third
threshold percentage of 90%), and a lower multiplier may be associated with
the lower third
threshold percentage (e.g., a multiplier such as 1.5 associated with a third
threshold percentage
of 70%).
[0077] Referring to FIG. 3C, a table illustrates example methods of
determining the recall
factor. In FIG. 3C, the rows are labeled by product identifiers Pi, ..., P11
and the columns are
labeled as Ci and C2. A position XY will refer to the entry in row X and
column Y. Column Ci
indicates a determination as to whether the comparison of the product data
retrieved from the
CPSC database and the product identifiers yields a matching of data that
exceeds a third
threshold percentage (e.g., 80%). The entry "N" in Row Pi and Column Ci
indicates that the
matching of data for the product identified as Pi is less than 80%.
Accordingly, the entry "1" in
Row Pi and Column C2 indicates that the recall factor for the product
identified as Pi is 1.
[00781 In some implementations the subrogation score may be adjusted based
on a statute
factor. For example, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may
identify a state
for applying a Statute of Repose, and identify a statutory time limit for the
identified state in
the Statute of Repose database. The statute factor is based on comparison of
the statutory
time limit and an elapsed time from purchase date of said one or more
products. For example,
the scoring system 140 may determine if age of the one or more products
exceeds the statutory
time limit, determining the statute factor to be 1/2 when the age exceeds the
statutory time
limit, and determine the statute factor to be 1 when the age does not exceed
said statutory
time limit. A division factor other than 1/2 may be utilized to adjust the
subrogation score.
24
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[0079] Referring to FIG. 3D, a table illustrates example methods of
determining the statute
factor. In FIG. 3D, the rows are labeled by product identifiers P1, ..., P11
and the columns are
labeled as C1 and C2. A position XY will refer to the entry in row X and
column Y. Column C1
indicates a determination as to whether the age of the product exceeds the
statutory limit as
provided by the statute of repose for the relevant state. The entry "N" in Row
P1 and Column
C1 indicates that the age of the product identified as P1 does not exceed the
statutory limit.
Accordingly, the entry "1" in Row P1 and Column C2 indicates that the statute
factor for the
product identified as P1 is 1. Likewise, the entry "Y" in Row P2 and Column C1
indicates that the
age of the product identified as P2 exceeds the statutory limit. Accordingly,
the entry "'A" in
Row P2 and Column C2 indicates that the statute factor for the product
identified as P2 is 1/2.
[0080] In some implementations the subrogation score may be adjusted based
on one or
more of the statute factor, the new trend factor, and the recall factor. In
some
implementations the adjustment may be based on multiplying the subrogation
score by one or
more of the statute factor, the new trend factor, and the recall factor. In
some
implementations the subrogation score may be scaled logarithmically. The
logarithmic scaling
may be utilized, for example, to determine a suitable distribution for past
determinations of
subrogation scores for products in the historical database. Such a
distribution and/or scaling
may be periodically revised to reflect new entries in the historical database.
[0081] Referring to FIG. 3E, a table illustrates example methods of
determining the
subrogation score. In FIG. 3E, the columns are labeled by product identifiers
1)1,-, P11 and the
rows are labeled as R1 through Rs. A position XY will refer to the entry in
row X and column Y.
Column P1 represents the numerical values associated with the product
identified as P1. For
example, the entry "0.05" in Row R1 and Column P1 represents the base score
for the product
identified as P1 as illustrated in the entry of "0.05" in Row P1 and Column C6
of the table in Fig.
3A, expressed as a decimal number. The entry "1" in Row R2 and Column P1
represents the
recall factor for the product identified as P1 as illustrated in the entry of
"1" in Row P1 and
Column C2 of the table in Fig. 3C. The entry "2" in Row R3 and Column P1
represents the new
trends factor for the product identified as P1 as illustrated in the entry of
"2" in Row P1 and
Column C3 of the table in Fig. 3B. The entry "1" in Row R4 and Column P1
represents the statute
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
factor for the product identified as P1 as illustrated in the entry of "1" in
Row P1 and Column C2
of the table in Fig. 3D. The product of the entries in rows R2 through R5 of
Column P1 of Fig. 3E
(e.g., 5 x 1 x 2 x 1 = 0.1) is illustrated in the entry in Row R5 and Column
Pi. Accordingly, in
some implementations, the subrogation scoring system 140 may associate a
subrogation score
of 0.1 with the product identified as P1. In some implementations the entries
in Row R5 may be
additionally scaled. Scaling may be achieved, for example, by taking an
appropriate logarithm
of the subrogation scores.
[0082] In some implementations a graded scoring scale may be identified.
Such a graded
scoring scale may be based, for example, on a record of historical subrogation
scores. In some
implementations a distribution may be determined based on the record of
historical
subrogation scores. Such a distribution may facilitate the division of the
entire range of
historical subrogation scores into a graded scoring scale.
100831 Referring to FIG. 3F, a graph illustrates an example method of
providing a
subrogation score. In some implementations a graded scoring scale may be
determined. The
range of values from 0 through 1.6 may be grouped into smaller ranges, such as
0 to 0.5, 0.6 to
0.8, 0.9 to 1.1, 1.2 to 1.4, and 1.5 or higher. For example, subrogation
scores in the range from
0 to 0.5 may be indicative of a "low" subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim
for products; subrogation scores in the range from 0.6 to 0.8 may be
indicative of a "below
average" subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim for
products; subrogation
scores in the range from 0.9 to 1.1 may be indicative of an "average"
subrogation opportunity
for a potential subrogation claim for products; subrogation scores in the
range from 1.2 to 1.4
may be indicative of an "above average" subrogation opportunity for a
potential subrogation
claim for products; and subrogation scores that are 1.5 or higher may be
indicative of a "high"
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim for products.
[0084] In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may
provide the
subrogation score to the subrogation opportunity processing system 110. In
some
implementations the subrogation score may be provided to the user by the
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110. In some implementations the subrogation
report
26
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
generator 145 may generate a subrogation report based on the subrogation
score, and
optionally include the subrogation score in the subrogation report.
[0085] In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may
determine a
rating based on the subrogation score. For example, the subrogation score may
indicate that a
first product is associated with a "high" rating whereas a second product is
associated with an
"average" rating based on a subrogation score more indicative of the
subrogation opportunity
for a potential subrogation claim associated with the first product, and a
subrogation score less
indicative of the subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim
associated with the
second product. In some implementations the subrogation score and/or
subrogation report
may be annotated with ratings that are indicative of a success rate of past
subrogation claims.
[0086] In some implementations the subrogation score and/or the subrogation
report may
be associated with the one or more product identifiers and stored in a
database such as the
subrogation database 130. The association may be stored with additional
timestamp data
indicating the date of loss. The subrogation database may be indexed based at
least in part on
such stored associations.
[0087] Referring to FIGs. 4A-4E, example graphical user interfaces for
providing a
subrogation score are illustrated. The subrogation scores may be provided to
the user via the
mobile application, such as application 165 running on the user's mobile
device, such as client
device 160. Each of Figs. 4A-4E illustrate a graphical user interface 400 on a
mobile application.
Each interface illustrated herein may be equipped with a first selectable
option 430 with an
option to "Proceed". Selection of the option to "Proceed" may be an indication
that the user
wishes to proceed with submission of a product for component testing. Each
interface
illustrated herein may be additionally equipped with a second selectable
option 440 with an
option to "Cancel". Selection of the option to "Cancel" may be an indication
that the user does
not wish to proceed with submission of a product for component testing.
[0088] Fig. 4A illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for a
product with a high
subrogation score indicative of a high subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation
claim. The subrogation score may be provided with a rating of "High" 420a. In
some
27
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
implementations the subrogation score may also be illustrated using the graded
scale as
discussed with reference to Fig. 3F. For example, a graphical representation
of the high scoring
range of 1.5 or higher (with reference to Fig. 3F) may be represented by a bar
graph 410a.
[0089] Fig. 4B illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for a
product with an
above average subrogation score indicative of an above average subrogation
opportunity for a
potential subrogation claim. The subrogation score may be provided with a
rating of "Above
Average" 420b. In some implementations the subrogation score may also be
illustrated using
the graded scale as discussed with reference to Fig. 3F. For example, a
graphical representation
of the above average scoring range of 1.2 to 1.4 (with reference to Fig. 3F)
may be represented
by a bar graph 410b.
[0090] Fig. 4C illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for a
product with an
average subrogation score indicative of an average subrogation opportunity for
a potential
subrogation claim. The subrogation score may be provided with a rating of
"Average" 420c. In
some implementations the subrogation score may also be illustrated using the
graded scale as
discussed with reference to Fig. 3F. For example, a graphical representation
of the average
range of 0.9 to 1.1 (with reference to Fig. 3F) may be represented by a bar
graph 410c.
[0091] Fig. 4D illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for a
product with a
below average subrogation score indicative of a below average subrogation
opportunity for a
potential subrogation claim. The subrogation score may be provided with a
rating of "Below
Average" 420d. In some implementations the subrogation score may also be
illustrated using
the graded scale as discussed with reference to Fig. 3F. For example, a
graphical representation
of the below average scoring range of 0.6 to 0.8 (with reference to Fig. 3F)
may be represented
by a bar graph 410d.
[0092] Fig. 4E illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for a
product with a low
subrogation score indicative of a low subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim.
The subrogation score may be provided with a rating of "Low" 420e. In some
implementations
the subrogation score may also be illustrated using the graded scale as
discussed with reference
28
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
to Fig. 3F. For example, a graphical representation of the low scoring range
of 0 to 0.5 (with
reference to Fig. 3F) may be represented by a bar graph 410e.
[0093] In some implementations where a number and/or percentage is utilized
to determine
a rating and/or a subrogation score, the subrogation opportunity processing
system 110 and/or
subrogation report generator 145 may identify a threshold number and/or
percentage to
determine if the rating and/or a subrogation score satisfy such threshold. In
some
implementations the threshold may be a fixed threshold. In some
implementations the
threshold may be based on the one or more products, product identifiers,
product data,
present or past subrogation claims, results of present or past component
testing, and so forth.
For example, statistical analysis may be performed on present and past
subrogation claims to
determine a statistically significant threshold.
[0094] Many other configurations are possible having more or fewer
components than the
environment shown in FIG. 1. For example, in some environments the subrogation
report
generator 145 and the subrogation scoring system 140 may be independent
components of
environment 100. In some environments, the subrogation database 130 may
further include a
historical database and a new trends database. In some environments, one or
more of the
historical database and the new trends database may be independent components
of the
system.
[0095] Referring to FIG. 5, a flow chart illustrates an example process for
determining a
subrogation score for one or more products implemented on one or more servers.
For
convenience, the method 500-540 will be described with respect to a system
that performs at
least parts of the method. Other implementations may perform the steps in a
different order,
omit certain steps, and/or perform different and/or additional steps than
those illustrated in
FIG. 5. For convenience, aspects of FIG. 5 will be described with reference to
a system of one or
more computers that perform the process. The system may include, for example,
one or more
components of FIG. 1.
[0096] At step 500, one or more products identifiers may be received. The
one or more
products identifiers may include one or more product identifiers identifying
one or more
29
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
products. For example, an insurance adjuster may respond to an insurance claim
and arrive to
find water in the basement, and may identify property loss as a result of the
water. The
insurance adjuster may identify one or more products that may be likely to
have caused the
property loss in the basement, such as a faulty water heater, a dishwasher, a
clothes washer,
and sump pump. The insurance adjuster may then gather data related to the one
or more
products. The data may be gathered by taking photographs, scanning product
barcodes, and/or
by manually entering data (e.g., product serial number, model number, UPC)
into data fields
provided in a mobile application, such as application 165. The received data
may be provided
to the subrogation opportunity processing system 110.
[0097] At step 510, at least one database may be searched for product data
related to the
one or more product identifiers. For example, the subrogation opportunity
processing system
110 may search a historical database for historical data related to component
testing related to
the one or more product barcodes. Also, for example, the subrogation
opportunity processing
system 110 may identify a state relevant to applying the Statute of Repose
(e.g., based on a
geographical identifier) and search the Statute of Repose limitations for the
identified state. As
another example, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may search
external
product databases 150 such as databases maintained by the Consumer Product
Safety
Commission ("CPSC"), Consumer Federation of America ("CFA"), and National
Highway Safety
Administration ("NHSA") for product recall data.
[0098] At step 520, product data may be retrieved from the at least one
database. For
example, product data may be retrieved from a historical database including
results of past and
present component testing. In some implementations the subrogation opportunity
processing
system 110 may identify trends in product defects based on component testing
data and
optionally store information related to such trends in a new trends database.
For example,
component testing may indicate that water heaters from a particular
manufacturer include a
component that fails within the first five years of use, but rarely within the
first two years of
use. Such data may not be available from an external product database 150. The
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110 may provide such information to the
subrogation scoring
system 140 which may accordingly assign a subrogation score more indicative of
the
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim with a water heater
that has been in
use for four years than with a water heater that is in its first year of use.
As another example,
the frequency of product data related to a sump pump may not be statistically
significant over a
period of say, 15 years. However, an observable spike may be seen when the
frequency of
product data is limited to the last six months. Such data may be stored in the
new trends
database. In some implementations the new trends database may be included in
the
subrogation database 130.
100991 At step 530, a subrogation score for the one or more products
identifiers may be
determined based on the retrieved product data. The subrogation score may be
indicative of
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim. In some
implementations the
subrogation score may be determined by the subrogation scoring system 140. In
some
implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may include a subrogation
report
generator 145. The subrogation score may be based on product data retrieved
from at least
one database, including a Statute of Repose database, a Consumer Product
Safety database, a
historical database and a new trends database.
[001001 At step 540, the subrogation score may be provided to the user. The
subrogation
score may be provided, for instance, to an insurance carrier. The subrogation
score may
provide an indication to the insurance carrier as to whether to pursue a
subrogation claim
relative to the one or more products. In some implementations the subrogation
score may be
provided via a graphical user interface in the mobile application running on
the user's mobile
device.
1001011 Referring to FIG. 6, a flow chart illustrates an example process for
determining a
subrogation score for one or more products implemented on a mobile
application. For
convenience, the method 600-640 will be described with respect to a system
that performs at
least parts of the method. Other implementations may perform the steps in a
different order,
omit certain steps, and/or perform different and/or additional steps than
those illustrated in
FIG. 6. For convenience, aspects of FIG. 6 will be described with reference to
a system of one or
more computers that perform the process. The system may include, for example,
one or more
components of FIG. 1.
31
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[00102] At step 600, one or more products identifiers may be identified via a
mobile device.
A mobile application configured to run on the mobile device may be utilized to
identify the one
or more product identifiers. The one or more products identifiers may identify
one or more
products. For example, an insurance adjuster may respond to an insurance claim
and arrive to
find water in the basement, and may identify property loss as a result of the
water. The
insurance adjuster may identify one or more products that may be likely to
have caused the
property loss in the basement, such as a faulty water heater, a dishwasher, a
clothes washer,
and sump pump. The insurance adjuster may then gather data related to the one
or more
products. The data may be gathered by taking photographs, scanning product
barcodes, and/or
by manually entering data (e.g., product serial number, model number, UPC)
into data fields
provided in a mobile application, such as application 165. Step 600 may have
one or more
aspects in common with step 500 of FIG. 5.
[00103] At step 610, the one or more product identifiers may provided to a
central server.
For example, the product identifier for a product barcode may be provided to
the subrogation
opportunity processing system 110.
[00104] At step 620, the mobile application running on the mobile device may
prompt the
central server to search at least one database for product data related to the
one or more
product identifiers. In some implementations the receipt of the one or more
product identifiers
by the central server may be the prompt to the central server to search the at
least one
database. For example, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may
receive one or
more product identifiers and search the historical database for historical
data related to
component testing related to the one or more product barcodes. Also, for
example, the
subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may identify a state where the
loss occurred
(e.g., based on a geographical identifier) and search the statute of repose
limitations for the
identified state. As another example, the subrogation opportunity processing
system 110 may
search external product databases 150 such as databases maintained by the
Consumer Product
Safety Commission ("CPSC"), Consumer Federation of America ("CFA"), and
National Highway
Safety Administration ("NHSA") for product recall data. Step 620 may have one
or more
aspects in common with step 510 of FIG. 5.
32
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
[00105] At step 630, a subrogation score for the one or more products is
received from the
central server. The subrogation score may be indicative of subrogation
opportunity for a
potential subrogation claim relative to the one or more products. In some
implementations the
subrogation score may be determined by the subrogation scoring system 140. In
some
implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may include a subrogation
report
generator 145. The subrogation score may be based on product data retrieved
from at least
one database, including a Statute of Repose database, a Consumer Product
Safety database, a
historical database and a new trends database. Step 630 may have one or more
aspects in
common with step 530 of FIG. 5.
[00106] At step 640, the subrogation score may be displayed via the mobile
device. The
subrogation score may be provided via one or more user interfaces on the
mobile device, and
the mobile application may be configured to interact with such user
interfaces. The one or
more user interfaces may include a graphical user interface. The subrogation
score may be
provided, for instance, to an insurance carrier. The subrogation score may
provide an
indication to the insurance carrier as to whether to pursue a subrogation
claim relative to the
one or more products.
[00107] Referring to FIG. 7, flow diagram illustrates an example process for
submitting a
subrogation project. For convenience, the method 700-770 will be described
with respect to a
system that performs at least parts of the method. Other implementations may
perform the
steps in a different order, omit certain steps, and/or perform different
and/or additional steps
than those illustrated in FIG. 7. For convenience, aspects of FIG. 7 will be
described with
reference to a system of one or more computers that perform the process. The
system may
include, for example, one or more components of FIG. 1.
[00108] At step 700, a subrogation score and/or a subrogation report is
provided to a user.
The subrogation score and/or the subrogation report may include a selectable
option to submit
the one or more products identifiers for component testing.
[00109] At step 710, the user is provided with a selectable option as to
whether it wants to
submit a project as a subrogation project. The user may decide, based at least
in part on the
33
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
subrogation score, to not pursue a subrogation project. For example, if the
one or more
products related to the potential subrogation claim are associated with a
subrogation score
indicative of a potentially "low" indication of subrogation opportunity for a
potential
subrogation claim, then the user may decide not to submit the project as a
subrogation project.
The subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may receive, via the
application on the
computing device of the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectable
option to not
submit the one or more products identifiers for component testing. Based on
such a decision
by the user, at step 720a, the one or more products identifiers may be
associated with the
subrogation report and stored in the subrogation database.
[00110] On the other hand, the user may decide, based at least in part on the
subrogation
report, to pursue a subrogation project related to the product. For example,
if the one or more
products related to the potential subrogation claim are associated with a
subrogation score
indicative of a potentially "high" indication of subrogation opportunity for a
potential
subrogation claim, then the user may decide to submit the project as a
subrogation project.
The subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may receive, via the
application on the
computing device of the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectable
option to submit
the one or more products identifiers for component testing. Based on such a
decision by the
insurance carrier, at step 720b, the system may prompt the user to enter claim
information,
including information related to the insured party, the claim number and the
date of loss.
1001111 At step 730, the user may be provided with a choice as to whether it
wants assistance
in shipping the product for component testing. The user may decide to ship the
product to a
component testing laboratory. Based on such a decision by the user, at step
740a, the system
may provide the user with information related to packaging and shipment of the
product so as
to preserve the evidence. In some implementations the user may be prompted to
take
photographs of the product, and/or enter information related to the product.
The user may
also be provided with the shipment address.
[00112] On the other hand, the user may decide to utilize the processes
disclosed herein to
ship the product for component testing. Based on such a decision by the user,
at step 740b, the
system prompts the user to enter the origin and destination information for
shipping purposes.
34
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
In some implementations, at least the destination information may be provided
as a selectable
menu of options based on the one or more subrogation project types and/or
products. For
example, if the target product is a water heater, it may be shipped to a
component testing
laboratory that has expertise in analyzing water heaters. On the other hand,
if the target
product is an air conditioning unit, it may be shipped to a component testing
laboratory that
has expertise in analyzing air conditioning units. The user may be prompted to
provide location
information for the product. In some implementations such location information
may be
identified using geolocation data such as that received via GPS, cell tower,
and/or a Wi-Fi
network, and the user may be provided with the identified location, and
additionally prompted
to verify the identified location.
[00113] From either of the two steps 740a and 740b, the process flows to step
750 where a
confirmation number is generated and provided to the user. Additionally,
evidence
preservation recommendations may be made to the user so that the product may
be shipped
for component testing within a short window of opportunity so as not to lose
potential
evidence. The evidence preservation recommendations may include information on
packaging
the product and possibly extracting and/or removing one or more components
from the
product before shipping the product.
[00114] At step 760, evidence characteristics may be captured. For example, a
photograph of
the evidence may be taken. The photograph may be further annotated with the
confirmation
number received in step 750.
[00115] At step 770, the evidence characteristics may be provided to the
subrogation
opportunity processing system 110, and/or stored in the subrogation database
130.
[00116] FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an example computer system 800 for
determining a
subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to one or
more products.
Computer system 800 may include one or more processors 835 which may
communicate with a
number of peripheral devices via bus subsystem 815. Peripheral devices may
include, for
example, a memory system 820 and a file system 825, user interface input
devices 810, user
interface output devices 805, and a network interface system 830. The input
and output
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
devices allow user interaction with computer system 800. Network interface
system 830
provides an interface to outside networks and may be coupled to corresponding
interface
devices in other computer systems.
[00117] User interface input devices 810 may include devices such as a
keyboard, a mouse,
and a touchscreen. User interface input devices 810 may also include audio
input devices,
and/or other types of input devices including mobile devices such as client
device 160. User
interface output devices 805 may include devices such as a display (e.g., on a
computing device
160), a printer, and a fax machine. User input devices 810 may also include,
for example, a
scanning device for digitally scanning a product barcode. Also, for example,
user input devices
810 may include a camera for taking photographs.
[00118] Memory system 820 may include a number of conventional memory systems
including a main random access memory (RAM) for storage of instructions and
data during
program execution and a read only memory (ROM) in which fixed instructions are
stored. File
system 825 may provide persistent storage for program and data files, and may
include a hard
disk drive, and/or an optical drive. Other conventional file storage systems
may be used. The
memory system 820 and the file system 825 may include the logic to determine
the
subrogation score, and/or generate a subrogation report. Also, for example,
the memory
system 820 and the file system 825 may include the logic to implement the
processes disclosed
in steps 500-540, steps 600-640, and/or steps 700-770. These software modules
are generally
executed by processor 835 alone or in combination with other processors.
[00119] Bus subsystem 815 provides a mechanism for letting the various
components and
subsystems of computer system 800 communicate with each other as intended.
[00120] Computer system 800 may be of varying types including a workstation,
server, or any
other data processing system or computing device, including a mobile device.
The description
of computer system 800 depicted in FIG. 8 is intended only as a specific
example for purposes
of illustrating some implementations, and represents one of several possible
configurations.
[00121] While there has been described and illustrated particular
implementations of a
system and method for determining subrogation opportunity for a potential
subrogation claim,
36
CA 02849612 2014-04-23
it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that variations and
modifications may be possible
without deviating from the broad principle of the present invention, which
shall be limited
solely by the scope of the claims appended hereto.
[00122] It should also be understood that, unless clearly indicated to the
contrary, in any
methods claimed herein that include more than one step or act, the order of
the steps or acts
of the method is not necessarily limited to the order in which the steps or
acts of the method
are recited.
[00123] In the claims, as well as in the specification above, all transitional
phrases such as
"comprising," "including," "carrying," "having," "containing," "involving,"
"holding," "composed
of," and the like are to be understood to be open-ended, i.e., to mean
including but not limited
to. Only the transitional phrases "consisting of" and "consisting essentially
of" shall be closed
or semi-closed transitional phrases.
[00124] It is understood that these examples are intended in an illustrative
rather than in a
limiting sense. Computer-assisted processing is implicated in the described
embodiments. It is
contemplated that modifications and combinations will readily occur, which
modifications and
combinations will be within the scope of the following claims.
37
